The importance of establishing identity beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment dated 7.9.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar by which the conviction and sentence recorded against him on 5.4.1999 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar was upheld and the appeal filed by him was dismissed.

2. On 5.10.1995, Balbir Singh brother of Amarjit Singh PW and his sister-in- law Harminder Kaur were going on scooter No. PAP-3648 from Gharuan to Machhiwara. Amarjit Singh PW4 and Amrik Singh PW7 were following them on a motor cycle. When they reached near Dallan Khurd situated on the G.T. Road, then a Matador No. PAI-8198 came from the side of Ludhiana. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of Balbir Singh. As a result of the accident, Harminder Kaur and Balbir Singh received multiple injuries. Harminder Kaur died on the spot. Amarjit Singh had arranged for a car and took Balbir Singh injured to Morinda Hospital leaving Amrik Singh near the dead body of Harminder Kaur. The driver of the Matador had fled away with the vehicle towards Morinda. Later on the name of the driver of Matador No. PAI-8198 came to the knowledge of the complainant. He was identified as Love Raj petitioner. The formal FIR was registered on the statement of Amarjit Singh. During the investigation, the petitioner was arrested. His driving licence and Matador in question were taken into possession. The challan was put in Court of the Illaqa Magistrate.

3. After going through the papers submitted with the challan, the trial Court framed charge under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case against the petitioner.

5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. According to him, the case was false and had been filed against him with a view to get compensation. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. The trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted the petitioner of the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for 2 months.

7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed. Hence this revision.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the case file.

9. On behalf of the petitioner, it is sought to be asserted that his identity as the driver of the Matador No. PAI-8198 has not been established and the statements of the PWs with regard to this fact too cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that admittedly the vehicle had stopped immediately at the site of the accident and had fled away towards Morinda. The testimony of two witnesses namely Amarjit Singh and Amrik Singh with regard to how they came to know about the identity of the petitioner is mutually contradictory and cannot be relied upon and in such a case where the prosecution does not disclose as to how the investigating agency came to know the name of the driver of the vehicle. The benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner.

10. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that from the fact that the name of the petitioner finds mention in the FIR which was recorded promptly as also on account of the fact that both Amarjit Singh and Amrik Singh PWs in their statements made by them in the Court pinpoint that who was driving the offending vehicle. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that none other than the petitioner was at the wheel of the Matador on 5.10.1995 when the accident took place. Therefore, there is no ground for interference with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.

11.